The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-06-27
COTTON COMPRISING.
No Lien Prior to the Affreightment
Contract on Cotton Compressed In

NO Lien PriOr 10 INC AurSiS httuohV
Contract on Cotton Compressed In
land.
Judge Pardee, of the United States Cir
cult Court of Louisiana, has rendered an
important decision in suit brought in New
Orleans to establish a maratime lien for the
COMPRISING of cotton when the COMPRISING
was done inland and before any contract
for affreightment binding ON the ship was
made, which is Of interest here, where the
same practice prevails as at New Orleans.
Comprising cotton for shipment by yes
sci or railroad, Judge Pardee decides, is
land business. The demand of the ibelant
in the case which he decided was, in effect,
to establish a maritime lien for the com
pressing of cotton, when the COMPRISING
was performed inland and before any con-
tract of afffeightnent, binding on the ship,
was made The statement of the case
showed that there can be no lien for such
COMPRISING. In the port of New Orleans
the custom and usage was and is that bills
of lsding of cotton are made and
rates are fixed with reference to the de-
livery to the ship of uncompressed cotton,
and that when compressed cotton is deliver
ed to ship the ship repays the cost of
COMPRISING. Concede such custom, Judge
Pardee said, and IL can have no greater eff
feet than an express contract to the same
purport between the master and the ship
per. Such an express contract is in sub
stance an agreement to make rebate on
the freight of compressed cotton and to pay
such rebate before the freight is earned, or,
in other words, the ship, in consideration of
freight to be earned, agrees to pay down
cash amount.
Maritime liens are strict juris, and
do not arise on all contracts made
by the owners to result in benefit to the
ship. Many examples might be given. 1t
is only where the contract to result in bene-
fit to the ship is maritime contract that a
lien on the ship arises. Whether a contract
is or not maratime contract depends on its
subject matter, j. g. whether it provides for
maritime services, maritime transactions
or maritime casualties. In the present case
the contract has reference to the obtaining
of cargo and is to be performed before
the voyage is commenced and without
reference to the result. policy of insur-
ance on a ship is maritime contract, but
no lien results for the premium. There is
no lien for commissions on advances nor f1I
obtaining freights. A shipping broker has
no lien for services in procuring charter
party. The services of solicitor of freight
are not maritime in character and create
no lien on the vessel
Judge Brown says! "The distinction be-
tween preliminary services leading to amar-
themselves have been affirmed in this coun-
try from the first and not yet departed
from. It furnishes distinction capable of
somewhat easy application. If it be broken
down do not perceive any other dividing
line for excluding from the admiralty many
other sorts of claims which have reference
more or less near or remote to navigation
and commerce. If the broker of a charter
party be admitted the insurance broker
n1uSt follow the 1ra vll1an tha aYpraSSroar
and all others who perform services having
reference to voyage either in contempla-
ton or executed"
And so the responsibilities of the ship on
account of cargo must be held to commence
with the delivery of the goods to the ship
and be confined to the transportation to and
safe delivery of the goods at the port of de-
livery, and to the performance of such mari
time services as may lawfully be agreed
upon. If charges and expenses necessary to
the ship and to the conduct of its business.
but preliminary to the contract of affreight-
ment, are admitted as maritime liens, there
viii be no end of the business that may be
drawn to the admiralty. Comprising,
ginning. baling, and perhaps picking
cotton, may each ripen into a lien
on the ship that eventually contracts
to carry the cotton from the country.
The principle on which the decisions rest
as to lien or no lien is, ''that the test is to
be applied to the subject and not to the OBJ
ject-that is to say, it is the subject matter
of the contract which must be maritime
and not the mere object--the ship" The
subject of the hbelants' contract under the
custom claimed was not the carrying of the
cotton, but was preliminary thereto, and
was not a maritime contract and no lien
arises. The exception was maintained and
the libel dismissed with COSTS